Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

General Lee's Peking writes to mention an Associated Press article about a sad development in the DARPA Grand Challenge. Because of some new DoD-related legislation, the organization will no longer be able to award the $2 Million prize to grand challenge winners. It's not all bad, though; they still get a trophy. From the article: "The absence of a lucrative cash prize has forced some teams to retool their game plan and others to drop out. Some fear it would be harder to attract corporate sponsors and hurt media coverage of the race, which drew a throng of reporters last year and inspired a PBS documentary. 'The icing on the cake is gone,' said Ivar Schoenmeyr, team leader of California-based Team CyberRider, which is retrofitting a Toyota Prius hybrid."

Your hate blinds you, and works to the advantage to the very policies you despise. Repeat after me: Congress writes the laws; Congress controls the money; The Executive implements the laws. If you don't like laws with bad portions tacked on, blame Congress, not the president, who has no line-item veto (thank Congress for that one too). This is doubly true for anything spending related, as that is Congress' job with its "power of the purse". If you want to change things, fight the battle where it matters, in the congressional elections. Far too many people focus only on the presidential election, losing sight of the true seat of power in our government. The best way a presidental election can be helpful is by electing from the opposite party as the majority in Congress (i.e. voting for gridlock). What you can't expect, however, is a president to veto crappy laws from his own party. Don't blame the messenger.

Think of Clinton in his first two years (Clipper chip, anyone?), versus his last six. When did he do better? Look at who was the majority in Congress during those periods. Educating, isn't it? In other words, a president is at his best when he is a brake on the stupidity of Congress. Of course, for an issue like this, even Clinton/Gore/Kerry are not going to veto some enormous spending bill for some obscure and relatively minor addition. For that kind of thing, you can only blame the ones who created it, which is Congress. That is where you should fight your battle.

Fair enough, but far too many people are going to actually believe it. I see this attitude about our government all the time, where people have diagnosed the problem, but incorrectly identify the biggest cause. It makes me sad to see it perpetuated. That is why I posted.

Not to be a nitpicker (but hey, what else is/. about?), but I believe the line-item veto was actually ratified by Congress but struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional... and the courts are right because the constitution never mentions a line-item veto, no matter how much us moderns think it makes sense.

Without coffee, I swear the Air Force would shut down. Coffee is the real black gold.

"OK private, we're all counting on you to get through the lines. We'll try to hold out as long as we can, but you know what we're up against. Now just to be sure you've got it right, repeat your objective."

Stifling innovation- find out the Congress folks who pushed this legislation through and make sure their staff do a little "constituent services"

Not sure exactly what you mean there, but the Defense budget is the largest it has been in ages, it's perplexing that they'd choose to cut here, unless there's some bizarre (well, not in light of the privatisation of many military services and operations) pressure to keep this in other hands, ahem, those which would prefer to sell goods and services they develop at great expense (and thus need reimbursement) and clearly some bunch of college yahoos couldn't do as well.

Not sure exactly what you mean there, but the Defense budget is the largest it has been in ages, it's perplexing that they'd choose to cut here

Two things:

Please do not look at absolute dollar values, they are nonsense. Look at defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The US defense budget is about the same size as it was during the isolationist period leading up to WWI. In terms of percentage, the US spends about 3.8% of its GDP on defense, putting it in the same area of the list as Tanzania.

Thanks to the neglect of the military under Clinton, the Air Force has ancient aircraft and can't maintain them all because they break so fast, the Navy has too few ships and many of those still in service have entire systems which are inoperable due to neglect, and the Army can no longer rely on unlimited overseas basing, unlimited Navy sealift and unlimited Air Force airlift and so must get rid of all their heavy artillery and heavy tanks to transform to a lighter force.

That said, the US defense is the smallest it's been in ages and re-equipping three branches of the military is not cheap.

Please do not look at absolute dollar values, they are nonsense. Look at defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The US defense budget is about the same size as it was during the isolationist period leading up to WWI. In terms of percentage, the US spends about 3.8% of its GDP on defense, putting it in the same area of the list as Tanzania.

Keep in mind that a significant percentage of defence support is now performed by private industry, thus increasing the overall budget and the Pentagon does not perform a considerable amount of services itself. it's said to be more efficient, but when the DoD performed its own services the money largely stayed within the department. Further, these large requests of 70 and 80 billion to support the war on terror, are they included in these figures?

Thanks to the neglect of the military under Clinton, the Air Force has ancient aircraft and can't maintain them all because they break so fast, the Navy has too few ships and many of those still in service have entire systems which are inoperable due to neglect, and the Army can no longer rely on unlimited overseas basing, unlimited Navy sealift and unlimited Air Force airlift and so must get rid of all their heavy artillery and heavy tanks to transform to a lighter force.

The Clinton administration hardly neglected the military. Clinton didn't actively seek out conflicts to expend material on, the largest being the Serbia/Bosnia conflict, which he brought NATO in to a significant degree (as it was most member states' own backyard this seems fair.) Clinton prefered diplomatic engagement, building support over unilateral moves. Clinton was more fiscally conservative than his successor.

The military has been neglected and mismanaged since the Reagan administration ended. He rescued us from the Hollow Force era, and the military has been living on the results for too long. I've been in the USAF since '81 and have not seen it this bad.It has been under continuous drawdown, procurement of new systems is not done with thought to economies of scale, and services like the Navy and AF are slashing personnel to pay for few and overpriced new systems.It is, provably, a bipartisan clusterfuck.

I'll give 10 to 1 odds that this is a result of some asshat policy maker (probably the one that spends all his time playing WoW) changing the rules without actually sitting down to think about the consequences of his shiny new policy... that kind of thing is a LOT more common than someone executing part of a far-reaching-conspiratorial-plan...

... like when some aide lined out the entire Space Environment Center [noaa.gov] from NOAA's [noaa.gov] budget a few years ago -- after all, space is outside NOAA's bailiwick, so what are those goons doing? Turns out they're only ensuring the ongoing safety of the electrical grid and all of our comsats, phone systems, and aviation network...... or like when, in 1998, I and a host of colleages traveled to the island of Guadeloupe to study a solar eclipse, and none of our colleagues from the Naval Research Laboratory had a place

I should have been more specific: by "asshat policy maker" not thinking about the consequences of "his shiny new policy", I should've said "the shiny new policy they just wrote".

El Presidente may have signed it... but you can be damned sure he didn't actually write the thing. Someone else did, and then they managed to asskiss enough politicians to get 5 minutes of his time, during which, he likely signed a policy that, as a whole, had very little to do with the DARPA prize, but probably contained some obsc

Oddly enough, the President doesn't get to decide exactly what obscure sections go into a defense spending law. If he did, you can bet that companies located in districts represented by Congressmen on the appropriations committee wouldn't just happen to get lots of big contracts.

Sure, you can maybe blame him for not vetoing the spending bill, but unless he really cared about this one expenditure, why would you expect him to?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to take a long shower, because I fell really dirty after actually defending the President. But can you please save your blame of him for the tons of things that are actually his fault?

Oh cool... can you hook a brutha up? I just submitted a grant application to get the gear my university needs to get into the small league competition [robocup.org]... I could use all the money I can get:)

The DoD could always offer other forms of remuneration to the winner. Such a awarding contracts for supplies, such as $500 toilet seats and $250 hammers...nyet?

I could be wrong here, but don't think Stanford University is in the business of manufacturing toilet seats or hammers (though I dare say there's probably an ample supply of BFH's in the engineering school) The money awarded a university probably just goes into the general fund, where maybe the board would toss a bit of it as a reward (say, 10%)

Its easy, They said they would award a Trophy.
If they pay $500 for a toilet seat and $250 for a hammer then a nice trophy would be like $2 million.
They could award some kind of voucher to go pick the trophy the winning team wants.
You wouldnt want them stuck with just any $2 million trophy. They should pick the one they want.
I'm sure the government has some kind of voucher that would be good at any trophy shop.
Yea maybe the Govt. bank will back the voucher so you know its good, call it a "Federal

Some of those things are myths. Some of them rest are rumored to be 'covers' for black ops spending. The remaining ones are specialized things, such as $500 toilet seats for long range bombers that are integreated into the pilot's seat.

Yeah, it is often said (and I thought it has been confirmed in a few places) that black-ops spending still has to clear congress so it gets slipped into inflated prices on normal goods. I think the completely ridiculous amounts are either people getting too cozy in their habits (you could easily write $100 or $150 for something like a tire that probobly only costs $50 but writing that much for a hammer is a little too noticable because even a really nice hammer wont cost that much).

Some of those things are myths. Some of them rest are rumored to be 'covers' for black ops spending. The remaining ones are specialized things, such as $500 toilet seats for long range bombers that are integreated into the pilot's seat.

Indeed, nearly every one of those much-trumpeted examples of defense waste are not, in fact, nearly as stupid as people would like to think. The one you mention is a good example of how dumbasses read line items like "toilet seat" and automatically assume it's the same as th

I used to be able to find web pages explaining how this urban legend started, but I can't find it any more, because it's totally drowned out by the legend itself. The funny thing is the numbers are different every single time.

The myth of the $600 hammer [govexec.com], By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. is a good article on the reasons why federal budgeting seems inflated, but isn't. Most of the article is dry budget speak, but it explains the hammer explicitly, at least.

It sounds like it's just a bureaucratic (sp?) paperwork shuffle. The money will be available. And if not, I'm sure they can find a few congressmen/women to either put pressure on the DoD or write a bill to specifically authorize the money. No one wants to look either "soft on terror" or "unconcerned about troop safety", so this will all work out. Hell, I'm sure Bush, as CIC, can move the money if needed.

It sounds like it's just a bureaucratic (sp?) paperwork shuffle. The money will be available. And if not, I'm sure they can find a few congressmen/women to either put pressure on the DoD or write a bill to specifically authorize the money. No one wants to look either "soft on terror" or "unconcerned about troop safety", so this will all work out. Hell, I'm sure Bush, as CIC, can move the money if needed.

This is what I suspect. Especially since this is a great marketing vehicle (ba-dum!) for Science educatio

There is nobody in DARPA higher than the director, so "One position above the DARPA director" means "not DARPA." The Director of Defense Engineering and Research concievably could, but when have they? Do you have a boss? When they say, "X is now my decision, not yours," do you take that to mean that your boss will decide however you want if you ask nicely?

It was DARPA's idea. DARPA's annual budget is $3e9 [darpa.mil] (check out the 7th page), and the few million they spent on the Grand Challenges was IME some of

Just get corporate sponsorship for the prize.
The purse could actually become a lot larger...
I would think the big guys would kill to have their names splashed around on all the videos of the contest.

I'm on the Princeton DARPA team, and we're on Track B. The prize money at the end was a nice incentive and certainly garnered attention for the competition, but that's not where the real harm lies. For passing the site visit, there was a prize of $50,000, and for making it to the finals, a $250,000 prize (don't quote me on the amounts, that's just my recollection). These milestone prizes would've gone a long way to offset the financial disparity between Track A teams (who've received substantial DARPA grants) and the Track B teams. We're on a shoestring budget, and that money would've been incredibly useful. Instead, we now have to go the entire distance without a dime from the government.

Congress is split about that evenly, barely favoring the TrollMods, which is one reason why we're getting so many 12 minutes in Iraq, and no DARPA Grand Challenge prizes.

In a few weeks, you'll get a chance (if you're an American voter) to pick your representative in the House, and probably your Senator, too. Decide whether they agree with your preference for DARPA or Iraq. Vote Tuesday, November 7 2006. You'll be stuck with the re

(A) by striking `Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency' and inserting `Director of Defense Research and Engineering and the service acquisition executive for each military department'; and

Emphasis mine. You can see that now they have to add a dude (assuming that Director of Defense of DARPA is now "Director of Defense Research and Engineering", otherwise it's out of DARPA's hands all together). Maybe it's just a matter of signatures, but I can see how they have been forced to put the award on hold until they can, you know, obey the law as Congress has fiddled with it. And I confess that I haven't looked at the legislation that this section amends, which is:

The leading teams this time are Stanford/Volkswagen, CMU/General Motors, and Oshkosh Truck. The prize doesn't matter to either. And all three already got $1 million in Government money. Each.

It's a much tougher job this time. Driving in traffic, backing out of tight spots, parking and unparking. I'll be surprised if anyone wins the first year, because nobody knows quite what to expect. Year two, someone will win.

Well if they aren't funding a Grand challenge its because they are funding the URBAN challenge. Instead of driving around a desert, we are supposed to drive around an "urban landscape" and be able to pass cars, follow california traffic laws etc. Another big change is that they are funding university teams in-ADVANCE! Our team got $1Million straight up, so we can buy a new car and all the electronics and sensors we need to make the best system possible. Since we are all students, the system we build IS

Yes. The money which is no longer available was prize money, as well as milestone prizes for the track B teams. The difference between track A and track B is that track A gives all its technology to the government at the end (in exchange for $1 million of development money), and track B has no such obligation. The track A funds (contracts rather than prizes) are still fully intact, so all of the track A teams are still in it. What's been cut out is the incentive for track B teams to enter. These are the teams that are NOT giving technology directly to the government, and are using the race as a vehicle for development of technology that can truly benefit the world in ways other than making robot death jeeps. Say, for example, saving hundreds of thousands of lives in traffic accidents every year.

So yes, I would much rather see a portion of the DoD's budget spent encouraging development of revolutionary safety technology for civilian drivers rather than a big contract to a traditional defense contractor for something that directly kills people. (Keep in mind, the funds were not -cut-, DARPA's authority to use them for prizes was simply removed.)

While I think your point is valid, I do think that the prize money added to the overall prestige of the competition, which was a motivating factor for many to enter.

Also, it seemed that the top winners actually spent more to win the competition than what they received in prize money. Not saying that the prize money didn't help to recoup costs though. It could have this positive effect in that if someone doesn't win they won't see it as a crushing blow to their finances.

The prize money is kind of like a lottery drawing, except that it's based on knowledge and skill, not so much on luck. It attracts teams who will enter despite the fact that there may be better returns on their investments of time and creativity.
The cash price would generate far more media attention than a simple awards ceremony.
If we want to encourage people to invest in science and technology, this is a good way to do it.

Interesting enough VW have already done it, see:http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/vw_abandon s_its.html [greencarcongress.com]The VW Lupo is available but it only does 78.4mpg(US). Their development car did much better: 0.89 litres of diesel per 100 kilometres (264 mpg) top speed was still 75mph. but they could not make the commercial version cheaper than $25K

Just using today's technology, you could probably get pretty close to 100 mpg with a Prius, good lithium batteries, and additional solar powered charging (to eliminate need to plug-in the hybrid). Hand modifications would easily push the cost above $40K, but cheaply mass producing such a vehicle seems theoretically feasible, and certainly doesn't violate any laws of physics.

Just using today's technology, you could probably get pretty close to 100 mpg with a Prius

I could achieve it with a Chevette using yesterday's technolgy. Hell, I got 60 mpg out of a box stock 1976 Fiesta, in traffic, once upon a time, as a demonstration of how much driving style effects gas milage (the Prius is not immune from this effect. Some of its reported efficiency comes from the fact that its drivers are preselected to focus on economy in their driving). I'll give you 3000 mpg gallon with yesterday's

Why in the world would you say that? You're not one of those people that thinks bigger necessarily equals safer, are you?

All you have to do to achieve it is give up something else. We can strive for efficiency, but we canna change the laws of physics.

Sure, you might have to give up the ability to, um, I don't know. Help me out here - what exactly would you have to give up? The ability to accelerate quickly? Nope. The ability to decelerate quickly? Nope. What would you have to give up? Which "laws of physics" would one have to change? (I have an MS in Astrophysics, so don't feel that you have to speak to the layman.)

I will say this - when you're accelerating quickly you won't be getting your 100 mpg. But you can have the ability to accelerate quickly (say in an emergency) and still average 100 mpg. Forgive me for saying so, but it's not rocket science.:)

OK, so maybe you'll have to give up your "8 MPG" license plate (I actually saw one of these), but really, is that asking so much?

However, if your concern is that you want the *ability* to accelerate quickly - e.g., in an emergency - then you can still get your 100 mpg.

Right, if you give up that accelerating most of the time. That's something to give up. Some people won't. It's what they primarily want out of a motor vehicle. There are also still tradeoffs to be made, since an engine that isn't capable of that sort of acceleration can be made smaller and lighter, but then we're getting into the 3000 mpg territory I was talking about

Carbon fibre is good, and there's a chance that there will be cheap (as in aluminium-cheap) ways to extract titanium, which would massively reduce the costs of lightweight materials.

Size isn't necessarily given up. If you use materials that have half the mass per unit volume, you can have twice the volume. Car shapes tend to waste a lot of material (cuboids have a large surface area to unit volume) and a lot of internal space to aerodynamics (you still want aerodynamics, you just don't want to waste as much

the trade-offs are more along the lines of mpg vs acceleration, comfort, noise level, cargo capacity or any combination of those

I currently own a Civic Hybrid, and although these don't get 100 mpg yet, they have excellent acceleration, great comfort, very low noise levels, and sufficient cargo capacity. I'm confident that in the future, someone will be able to design a car that gets 100 mpg, has just as good acceleration, just as good comfort, just as low (if not lower) noise levels, and even better car

We don't need to hear about some random badly-designed pick-up truck or SUV. (jacked up 3 feet, with leaf springs, with an extra ton of chrome on the roof...) We all know.Extra distance between you and the impact point means that the impact can take longer, thus reducing the forces. For crashing into a wall, this means you should have a long hood.

Extra mass is helpful if the other object has some give, either via crushing or via being tossed the other way. Of course this applies to trees, railings, people,

I've heard this logic before, and it sounds good. However, I can also cite cases where bigger is worse, and not just for a particularly bad design decision. Case in point, I was in an accident [virginia.edu] a little over a year ago involving a tractor trailer and my 1995 Honda Civic, traveling 70 mph down I-85 in Georgia. The tractor trailer clipped my back wheel, sending me out of control and hit me again on the driver's side door. My wife (in the passenger seat) and I managed to get out of our car without a scratch. No